9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of notice under section 148 for assessment under section 147(a). Analysis: The case revolves around determining whether a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was properly served to justify an assessment under section 147(a) of the Act. The assessee, an individual deriving income from a partnership firm, initially filed an unsigned return in 1974, which the Income Tax Officer (ITO) deemed invalid. Subsequently, the ITO initiated proceedings under section 147(a) and served a notice under section 142(1) in 1981. The assessee then filed a return, and the assessment was finalized. However, the assessee contended that the assessment under section 147(a) was invalid due to the lack of proper notice under section 148. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that no valid notice was served on the assessee, challenging the legality of the service by affixture. The departmental representative claimed that the notice was served correctly, but the assessment records revealed procedural irregularities. The tribunal noted that the ITO failed to record reasons for reopening the assessment, a fundamental requirement under the law. Additionally, there was no evidence of a notice being issued, raising doubts about the validity of the service by affixture. The tribunal emphasized that a notice under section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement for reopening an assessment and must be properly served. The tribunal concluded that the assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 could not be upheld due to the lack of proper notice and procedural deficiencies. It deemed the notice by affixture as illegal and invalid, ultimately canceling the assessment. The tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and ensuring the proper service of notices for valid assessments under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
